Substance Use is Not Associated with Antidepressant Response to Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
Chesley, J.; Biernacki, K.; Vanleuven, J.; Doran, J. P.; Yazgan, I.; Yildiz, G.; Gonzalez, D. A.; Wagner, S. Y.; LeBaron, K.; Marrero, E.; Osama, T.; Vandekar, S.; Ward, H. B.
Show abstract
Background: Substance use is common among individuals with depression. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is an effective treatment for depression, but current clinical guidelines have discouraged TMS treatment for individuals with depression and co-occurring substance use given concerns for limited efficacy. However, limited data exists on whether substance use affects response to TMS. Methods: Using electronic health record data from patients who received a standard course of TMS for major depressive disorder at an academic medical center, we investigated associations between substance use frequency and response to TMS, defined as change in Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores. Substance use frequency was extracted for alcohol, cannabis, nicotine, stimulants, benzodiazepines, opioids, inhalants, psychedelics, and other drugs. We performed ANCOVA and multiple regression analyses to predict change in PHQ-9 score based on substance use frequency, controlling for pre-TMS PHQ-9 score, age, sex, and number of TMS sessions received. Results: We extracted data from 219 TMS courses. Alcohol was the substance used most commonly (34.2%), followed by prescription benzodiazepines (28.3%), and prescription stimulants (21.0%). Across all substance categories, substance use was not associated with change in PHQ-9 score (all p > 0.05, Cohens d=0.00 to 0.30). In multiple regression models to compare individual levels of substance use frequency (e.g., daily use vs. no use), level of substance use was not associated with change in PHQ-9 score (all p > 0.05). The range of plausible effects of substance use frequency on PHQ-9 change was generally below the minimal clinically important difference for PHQ-9, suggesting substance use was unlikely to have a meaningful clinical effect on antidepressant response to TMS. Conclusions: Low to moderate substance use does not have a clinically significant effect on antidepressant response to TMS. Low-level substance use should not exclude individuals with depression from receiving TMS.
Matching journals
The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- The disappointment centre of the brain gets exciting: A systematic review of habenula dysfunction in depression 93%
- Magnetic resonance imaging for individual prediction of treatment response in major depressive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis 93%
- Neurovegetative symptom subtypes in young people with major depressive disorder and their structural brain correlates 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Pro-cognitive effects of 5-HT4 receptor agonism in individuals with remitted depression 95%
- Sociodemographic, clinical, and genetic factors associated with self-reported antidepressant response outcomes in the UK Biobank 93%
- A single dose of lamotrigine induces a positive memory bias in healthy volunteers 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Unilateral and Bilateral Theta Burst Stimulation for Treatment-Resistant Depression: Follow up on a Naturalistic Observation Study 93%
- Ghrelin is associated with an elevated mood after an overnight fast in depression 91%
- Divergent transcriptomic profiles in depressed individuals with hyper- and hypophagia implicating inflammatory status 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Pilot Randomized Trial of Intermittent Theta-Burst Stimulation versus H-Coil Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Treatment-Resistant Depression 94%
- The Relationship between Cannabis Use and Cognition in People with Bipolar Disorder: A Systematic Scoping Review 94%
- Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation therapy with antidepressant treatment in patients with treatment-resistant depression in Japan 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.